--- a/src/DataStruct.v Sun Nov 11 13:36:17 2012 -0500+++ b/src/DataStruct.v Sun Nov 11 18:17:23 2012 -0500@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ end end. ]]- %\vspace{-.15in}%Now the first [match] case type-checks, and we see that the problem with the [Cons] case is that the pattern-bound variable [idx'] does not have an apparent type compatible with [ls']. In fact, the error message Coq gives for this exact code can be confusing, thanks to an overenthusiastic type inference heuristic. We are told that the [Nil] case body has type [match X with | 0 => A | S _ => unit end] for a unification variable [X], while it is expected to have type [A]. We can see that setting [X] to [0] resolves the conflict, but Coq is not yet smart enough to do this unification automatically. Repeating the function's type in a [return] annotation, used with an [in] annotation, leads us to a more informative error message, saying that [idx'] has type [fin n1] while it is expected to have type [fin n0], where [n0] is bound by the [Cons] pattern and [n1] by the [Next] pattern. As the code is written above, nothing forces these two natural numbers to be equal, though we know intuitively that they must be.+ %\vspace{-.15in}%Now the first [match] case type-checks, and we see that the problem with the [Cons] case is that the pattern-bound variable [idx'] does not have an apparent type compatible with [ls']. In fact, the error message Coq gives for this exact code can be confusing, thanks to an overenthusiastic type inference heuristic. We are told that the [Nil] case body has type [match X with | O => A | S _ => unit end] for a unification variable [X], while it is expected to have type [A]. We can see that setting [X] to [O] resolves the conflict, but Coq is not yet smart enough to do this unification automatically. Repeating the function's type in a [return] annotation, used with an [in] annotation, leads us to a more informative error message, saying that [idx'] has type [fin n1] while it is expected to have type [fin n0], where [n0] is bound by the [Cons] pattern and [n1] by the [Next] pattern. As the code is written above, nothing forces these two natural numbers to be equal, though we know intuitively that they must be. We need to use [match] annotations to make the relationship explicit. Unfortunately, the usual trick of postponing argument binding will not help us here. We need to match on both [ls] and [idx]; one or the other must be matched first. To get around this, we apply the convoy pattern that we met last chapter. This application is a little more clever than those we saw before; we use the natural number predecessor function [pred] to express the relationship between the types of these variables. [[@@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ Lemma sum_inc' : forall n (f1 f2 : ffin n -> nat), (forall idx, f1 idx >= f2 idx)- -> rifoldr plus 0 f1 >= rifoldr plus 0 f2.+ -> rifoldr plus O f1 >= rifoldr plus O f2. Hint Resolve plus_ge. induction n; crush.